There have recently been questions whether WMF is able to serve webfonts. Some people think that because of the issues that led to disabling webfonts by default in Universal Language Selector (ULS), WMF is not ready to consider webfonts for typography.
I don't think that way. ULS is not a good comparison point because of the following.
1) Universal Language selector is trying to solve a much harder issue than what webfonts are usually used for. It is trying to avoid tofu (missing fonts) which brings a whole list of issues which are not present or are much smaller otherwise: * large fonts for complex scripts, * detecting which fonts are missing, * many fonts per page, * the systems with greatest need of fonts often have bad renderers.
2) WMF has a lot of experience working with web fonts by now. We know how to handle different formats, how to optimally compress fonts and how to check the results in different systems and browsers. In some areas we are even ahead of Google, like non-latin fonts.
Thus, I think that delivering a relative small fonts for simple scripts like latin and cyrillic is something that is possible *if* we are willing to accept that it will take some bandwidth and that page load experience can be affected* if the font is not cached or present locally.
-Niklas
* The unwanted effects of using webfonts are getting smaller and smaller with modern browsers.